This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
The introduction date of 1969 strikes me as peculiar: the 50p came in just after decimalisation in 1972. The original idea was Tony Benn's, dating from around this time. Jel 08:20 October 2006 (UTC)
Er no. Decimalisation was 15 February 1971. The 5p and 10p coins were exact equivalents of the old 1/- and 2/- coins, and were released in 1968 to get people familiar with them. The 50p coin was the exact equivalent of the 10/- note and was released in October 1969. I know, 'cos I was there! -- Arwel (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Branches
Does it still have 8 branches? The old branch buildings I know in Manchester and Birmingham are now in commercial use. Arwel 01:36 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
They are not called 'Branches' anymore but 'Agencies' and the branch manager was called the Agent. The problem with branches was they gave the impression that it was a retail bank, which function stopped in the mid 1980s. The Agency operates from a suite of offices in a city and collects financial information. Liverpool and Southampton had 'Branches' but like those you mention they also became Agencies. 79.72.81.131 (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Tony S[reply]
Banknote reproductions
Susan Gent, Notes Reproduction Officer at the Bank of England says there is no permission to reproduce banknotes here in wikipedia. If anybody has image the want to post then they can get permission needed online from http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/ or by completing the attached application form. garryq22:40, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I applied for permission and was granted for a period of 1 year. I've only added images of the £10 and £20 notes, but will add the other current notes if anyone thinks it is worthwhile. Wangi09:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The current source notes on [[Image:Bank Of England10.gif]] for the £10 note reads:
"Permission granted by Bank of England for display on Wikipedia for a period of 12 months, ending 29 July 2006. Ref: FCA/9292A. Extended 31 July 2006 for a further 12 months, till 31 July 2007. Permission granted by Bank of England for display on Wikipedia for 12 months from 30 January 2008, until 29 January 2009. Ref: FCA/9292B. Permission also applies for any Series F notes in circulation in this period." -- Arwel Parry(talk)22:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pound Sterling value 1943
What is the value of 1£ sterling 1943 corresponding to today?
£20, £30?
Your reply will be grately appreciated.
Capt. E. Hammarstrom
eh@terramarinfo.se
See this Parliamentary research paper. The index value of the Pound in 1943 was 24.8, in 1998 592.3, so £1 in 1943 would have been worth £23.88 in 1998. Since then, inflation has been about 2% a year. -- Arwel 15:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Latest contribution
I notice that the "Functions of the bank" section has just been substantially expanded by anonymous editor 217.33.207.242, which a "whois" reveals is an address allocated to the Bank itself! I'm gratified that this editor didn't feel the need to delete any of the existing content, so despite recent criticisms of Wikipedia's accuracy, obviously there's nothing too objectionable here. :) -- Arwel (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of Sir John Soane?
Maybe a few words would be in order about how one of England's greatest architects, Sir John Soane, designed a HUGE complex for the Bank of England headquarters, how his desgin was an architectural masterpiece, and how it got demolished for no particulalry good reason during the Bank's expansion during WWI. Blahm14:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who controls the Bank of England
This question bothers many people including me. Is the Bank of England really in control of the government or in private hands? Please, people when you give an opinion, back your answer by a source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.204.137.18 (talk • contribs). on 14 May 2006.
The Bank of England, like the US Federal Reserve, is not a government institution at all but essentially a private bank. While it is mentioned on it's own homepage that the Bank was "nationalised" in 1946, the truth of this is far from certain.(Warning; See BELOW--Tom (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)) It is suspected that the real controllers of the Bank of England have been the Rothschild family since Nathan Rothschild instigated a stock market crash (and then bought up all the dumped stock) on the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. "The Money Changers" by Patrick Carmack is one source, this can be found at http://reactor-core.org/money-changers.html.[reply]
Additional information can be found in the following. Have fun :oD
Proofs of a Conspiracy Against All the Religions and Governments of Europe Carried on in the Secret Meetings of Freemasons, Illuminati and Reading Societies - John Robison - 1798
The Life of Napolean - Sir Walter Scott - 1827
Coningsby - Benjamin Disraeli - 1844
The Rothschilds, Financial Rulers Of Nations - John Reeves - 1887
Secrets Of The Federal Reserve - Eustace Mullins - 1952
The Rothschilds - Frederic Morton - 1962
The Hidden Tyranny - Benjamin Freedman - 1971
None Dare Call It Conspiracy - Gary Allen - 1972
Wall Street And The Rise Of Hitler - Anthony C. Sutton - 1976
Two Rothschilds And The Land Of Israel - Simon Schama - 1978
Descent Into Slavery - Des Griffin - 1994
Bloodlines Of The Illuminati - Fritz Springmeier - 1995
(Warning: The person who added above that the Bank of England could still be in private hands has not provided any evidence for this. The Bank of England was indeed nationalized and there is no evidence at all to supprt the claim that it is still in private hands... certainly the link does not support that claim. --Tom (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
(In response to above comment by Tom)
The only reference in support of the claim that the bank is publicly owned is the official site of the Bank of England. If you want to write the word 'Warning', it would be better placed in front of the article's opening paragraph where this claim is made and not on a discussion page where people are naturally skeptical due to the distinct lack of real evidence on this matter.
-Pete, March 3rd, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.220.136 (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph states the the bank is "state owned."
Then under the "History" section, the following is stated:
"In 1946, shortly after the end of Norman's tenure, the bank was nationalised and remains to this day government owned."
And then:
"In May 1997 The Governor and Company of the Bank of England regained their independence from Nationalisation and operate within the United Kingdom with autonomy from Government but under charter to it."
This being said, all the research I have just done in the past 15 minuites (see below) shows that the Bank of England is a quasi-public entity similar to the Federal Reserve; a private entity with private operational control under various legal restrictions. These appear to be major errors on this page and I hope someone can correct them for I am not well versed/experienced in Wiki editing nor do I have an advanced economics background as to properly organizing this information in valid terms.
It was very popular with the City of London, showing a sign of the new government's desire for a strong economy.
Following the announcement the FTSE 100 Index leapt rapidly.
The pound reached its highest level against the Deutsche mark since Sterling's exit from the ERM.
These remarks don't hold up when viewing the data. The FTSE didn't move a significant amount given the volatility of the period. The move in May (2.7%) was smaller than the previous April (4.4%) or the subsequent move in June (3.7%) (Bloomberg). These moves are about 1 standard deviation, i.e. not unusual. Similarly for the pound/mark rate. There appears to be no reaction in May, the peak was reached in the end of July (a reaction to US rates news), and subsequently moved sideways/down. I suggest that at best the reaction "In the City" was mixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 135.196.109.220 (talk • contribs). on 17 May 2006.
£1,000,00 Bank note?
WTH? ()
Hologram on the £50
I've removed the section about a hologram on the £50 note because it doesn't have one. It has a silver foil rose, that's all.
Interest and inflation rates
I am wondering: who, exactly, sets interest rates? And what does 'target inflation rate' mean? Is the target a target range? Or a single, precise figure? How often is the bank 'on target'? Laurel Bush16:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The Bank of England does. Note however that the Bank of England is a private institution, therefore the interest rates of this country are not set by government or by fiscal policy, but by a private organisation which has its own profit as its bottom line. Nice, huh?
Here's how it works. The government, a long long time ago, probably in the late 1600s - early 1700s, gave sole permission for printing money to the Bank of England. Basically the government asks the Bank of England for money, for whatever purposes it has in mind, which the Bank issues at a certain interest rate (set by itself). We the taxpayers then pay our taxes, council tax, VAT, window tax, swamp duty, air tax, water tax, you name it, everything that the government can tax, which money is then used to pay the interest (and if we're REALLY lucky, the principal too) on the governments loans from the Bank of England. So when governments insist on more tax, it isn't because they don't have enough money but rather it is because they have borrowed too much and they can't meet the repayments; this begs the question who gave them the authority to carry on spending in our names, but I won't get into that!
Inflation is basically when there is too much money in circulation and therefore what there is is effectively devalued. Remember that inflation only exists when the money-issuers (in this case the Bank of England) issue too much money; this begs the question of course that if they issued too much, did they issue too much deliberately, or are they just incompetent?! Let's leave out the incompetent - I think it's fairly safe to assume that people in that position are rarely incompetent! Therefore, that only leaves the suspicion that inflation is a mechanism of fiscal control used by Central Banks the world over.
Inflation is something that has only existed in modern times, when gold & silver standards were abolished (by the Central Banks!) for that very reason. It's all about control. As much as people think that the Bank of England (and every other Central Bank) is there to look after a countrys finances, they really aren't. If that were the case, we wouldn't be talking about private institutions who answer to shareholders. They are there to make a profit, and if that means bankrupting entire countries (as has happened, numerous times), then that's just tough for those at the bottom of the pile who habitually lose out.
Theoretically, inflation targeting is all about accounting and how the value of money changes from year to year. If a government sets a policy that is going to cost x amount if the 3 years it will take to implement, it helps to have an idea of what the real cost of that policy is, when inflation is taken into account. And if inflation can be controlled and taken into account, those types of accounting practices are made easier. Basically, when they set an inlation target they are betting on exactly how much further your money will have been devalued (by themselves!) in a given time period. How often they are on target is difficult to say; remember that we are effectively talking about people rigging the deck here. They know how much money they are issuing, therefore they know how much it is worth in real terms at all times, therefore they know exactly what rate inflation is running at at any given time. You could therefore extend that to mean that inflation only ever exists at the behest of the Central Bank (the Bank of England in the UKs case), and therefore it is totally irrelevant whether or not they are on target. Does it really matter to you whether inflation over the whole year ran at 2.15%, or at 2.2%? You can't do anything about it, and you can't avoid using your money, so you just have to take it on the chin.
The inequities of the world banking system are without a doubt responsible for more death, destruction and misery on this planet than anything else, with the possible exception of the mosquito, and one doesn't have to dig very far at all to see how glaringly corrupt the whole thing is. The fact that the Bank of England is a private institution should be enough to get every working man in the country on the streets in minutes; what is even more amazing is that so few are aware of these facts, and that there are even those who will argue tooth and nail that the Bank of England is a first-class democratic institution ran by perfect gentlemen with no regard for themselves. What becomes even more incredible is when one finds out that not only is the Bank of England a PRIVATE institution ultimately, but that it has in actual fact been controlled by one family since 1815. The same family which effectively controls the US Federal Reserve. Lucky family....!!!
Incidentally, JFK was assassinated soon after announcing plans to remove the US Federal Rserve from the American money-issuing system under Executive Order 11110 in order to get the US budget deficit under control. Suffice to say, this was not a popular idea among the real rulers of the country. Coincidentally, Abraham Lincoln was trying to do exactly the same a hundred years before. At no other times have any similar suggestions been made about who issues money in America...
Err, i think your argument falls down in the first paragrpah you are approximately 60 years out of date, the bank of england was nationalised in 1946, as such it is part of the government.
If you wish to believe that, then that is your right. The Bank of England SAYS it was nationalised - but then, the Federal Reserve purports to be part of the US Government. It is not. The Bank of England started out as a private institution for which there was a share floatation; check the history books. If it started out life as a private, for-profit institution, why one day should it nationalise itself? And more to the point, why would it expect us to BELIEVE it had nationalised itself. Key legislation? Don't make me laugh out loud!! Would that include anything about the initial floatation by any chance - which was never even paid in full? Get that, would you?! A private corporation which owns the whole country - and the full price was never even paid! Come on now, open your eyes and look around you. The government SAYS there is a War on Terror - but all there REALLY is is a war on liberty and dissent. The US government says its only philosphy is democracy - and both you and I know nothing could be further from the truth. So why would you believe the word of the very institutions who are BEHIND our lying governments?!
"There is something behind the throne greater than the King himself." Sir William Pitt, speaking to the House of Lords in 1770
"The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough money to buy it back again. However, take away from them the power to create money, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they OUGHT to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money." Sir Josiah Stamp, former Director of the Bank of England
Thirdly read this, then check into some INDEPENDENTLY written history (as opposed to history written by those who would benefit from it): http://reactor-core.org/money-changers.html
Ah no, why should you, you've read a couple of pages on Wikipedia so you're an expert on the subject...! But I'M the idiot....???!!!
Nationalising the Bank of England in 1946, which might seem at first sight to be a far reaching measure, made no difference in practice. Yes, the state did acquire all the shares in the Bank of England - they now belong to the Treasury and are held in trust by the Treasury Solicitor.
However, the government had no money to pay for the shares, so instead of receiving money for their shares, the shareholders were issued with government stocks. Although the state now received the operating profits of the bank, this was offset by the fact that the government now had to pay interest on the new stocks it had issued to pay for the shares. Therefore, "nationalising" the Bank Of England made no practical difference whatsoever and was in effect nothing more than a paper exercise to give the illusion of legitimacy.
"I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply." Nathan Rothschild, 1819.
It is suspected by serious economists that the Rothschild family control around 55% of all the world's wealth, and they are rumoured to be worth in excess of $400 TRILLION. Yes, it makes a mockery of Bill Gates $45 Billion. What power to be ON the rich lists. What incredible power to be THAT wealthy and yet appear on none... The latter part of the 19th Century was known as The Age of the Rothschilds. Even in the early 1800s they were known as "The World's Bankers", and it was also said in that time that "the wealth of the Rothschilds constitutes the bankruptcy of nations". It is strongly suspected that they control the US Federal Reserve via their control of a majority of the banks that make up the Federal Reserve System. It is also suspected that, because they control the wealth of at least the UK, the USA, France, Germany and Russia, they have overall control of the European Central Bank and the World Bank.
It is also alleged that there are around a dozen family bloodlines (including the Rothschilds) that control around 95% of all the world's wealth. You don't have to look very far past Google to see that this is very probably true.
Still, I wouldn't worry - the Labour Party of Clement Atlee will save you!! :-S
"From the time I took office as Chancellor of the Exchequer I began to learn that the State held, in the face of the Bank and the City, an essentially false position as to finance. The Government was not to be the substantive power, but was to leave the Money Power supreme and unquestioned." Gladstone.
"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes. Governments do not govern but the hidden hand." Disraeli.
Of the Versailles Peace Conference after the First World War: "The international bankers swept statesmen, journalists, and jurists all on one side and issued their orders with the imperiousness of absolute monarchs." Lloyd George.
"The issue which has swept down the centuries, and which will have to be fought sooner or later, is the People versus the Banks." Lord Acton in 1875.
"I set to work to read the Act of Parliament by which the Bank of England was created and I soon began to perceive that the fate of the kingdom must finally turn upon what should be done with regard to the accursed thing called the National Debt. I saw how it had beggared and degraded the country... The scheme, the crafty, the cunning, the deep scheme, has from its ominous birth been breeding usurers of every description, feeding and fattening on the vitals of the country, till it has produced what the world never saw before - starvation in the midst of abundance." William Cobbett.
"The nation state as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International Banks and Multinational Corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state." Zbigniew Brezinski, Secretary and founder member with David Rockefeller, President of the Chase Manhattan Bank, of the Trilateral Commission which links the hidden leaders of Europe, America and Japan.
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the NY Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But now the world is mroe sophisticated and prepared to march towards world government. The supra national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries..." David Rockefeller, in an address to the Council on Foreign Relations June 1991.
And last but not least...
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Goethe.
Dear sirs, I doubt that by literally quoting the whole of Zeitgeist - the movie you can have an informed opinion about the central bank of England. There is literally not one bit of information you have provided which is of your own research and to much disappointment you have transferred banking facts of America and applied them to the Bank of England, which really is quite short sighted, but then I suppose you think 9/11 was a conspiracy also. How terribly predictable. You hav quoted many of Britains finest theorists and failed to put them into context, just like your friend Mr. zeitgeist, for example
"There is something behind the throne greater than the King himself." Sir William Pitt
That quote could have been about the power of the publics voting or the power of money over men in high positions, not necessarily a banking conspiracy. You also use the example of JFK being shot when he announced reforms in America, you could then I suppose blame Coca Cola for the shooting of Martin Luthor King Jr, as he was shot after encouraging people to strike from the factories as they were being underpaid and badly mistreated. All of these are possible I suppose, yet we are discussing the Bank of England and there have been no assassination attempts on Gordon Brown, despite many bad decisions he's made during his reign as Chancellor of the Excheq. It is incredibly attractive to many young people to believe that there is some underlying conspiracy to many bad things that happen in the world, mainly because it makes you look smarter than people you meet who may not be aware of the conspiracies you are consistently promoting. My answer to you and all the people who quote and misinterpret events throughout history is this, if you think that for one second large organizations, whether they be governments, banks, Mi5, you are very much dreaming that they are organized enough to create such elaborate plans and then to conceal them. Do you know how difficult it is to keep people quiet? Do something useful with your time, get into politics, change the world in a more constructive way.
To the utterly pathetic and lacking attempt of a rebuttal above... I, and many others who actually give a shit about this country, would like to see proof that the Bank of England's true shareholders are the British government/treasury, and that ultimately the British public own the Bank of England and that its operations are run in the interests of the British people. Why are they so secretive? Where's the oversight? They supply the nation's credit for goodness sake. It is perhaps the most influencial institution in our country, since the economy would be dead without credit supply. Therefore, PROOF must be provided that this most important institution is owned by the interests of the British people as opposed to private, for profit stakeholders. It's the difference between wealth being unnecessarily taken out of our economy by capital interests or purchasing power being enriched by public creditors.
A lot of you self-proclaimed "experts" don't seem to understand the significance of the difference between a PUBLIC credit system and a PRIVATE credit system.
If it's the UK's central bank, then I think that there should be a note explaining why it didn't become the "Bank of Great Britain" and "The Bank of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" in the 1707 and 1800 acts of Union respectively. Does anyone know why this is the case? Thanks Lofty17:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Bank of Scotland is historically Scotland's national reserve, and was established by an act of the Parliament of Scotland in 1695, the year after the BoE, (which incidentally was founded by a Scotsman). However, post the 1707 Act of Union, all fiscal, economic blah matters were centralised on the BoE. Similarly the Bank of Ireland was established before the 1800 Act of Union in 1783. The BoS still to this day, has the power, along with other banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland to print its own money, the bank of Ireland however, along with other financial houses based in the Republic deal with Euros rather than Sterling now. Prior to the various acts of union, the BoE acted as a clearing bank much like its counterparts and only in the 19th c. did it drop private clients to concentrate on the economy of the Empire. Interestingly enough there are one or two private account holders left with the BoE, as the accounts are passed down heriditarily. Brendandh02:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Centrist views
"There is a notion -- widely believed in the mainstream media -- that while there is propaganda of the left and propaganda of the right, there is no such thing as propaganda of the center. In this view, the center doesn't produce propaganda, it produces straight news. Mainstream journalists typically explain: "We don't tilt left, we don't tilt right. We're straight down the middle of the road. We're dead center."
When mainstream journalists tell me during debates that "our news doesn't reflect bias of the left or the right," I ask them if they therefore admit to reflecting bias of the center. Journalists react as if I've uttered an absurdity: "Bias of the center! What's that?"
It is a strange concept to many in the media. They can accept that conservatism or rightism is an ideology that carries with it certain values and opinions, beliefs about the past, goals for the future. They can accept that leftism carries with it values, opinions, beliefs. But being in the center -- being a centrist -- is somehow not having an ideology at all. Somehow centrism is not an "ism" carrying with it values, opinions and beliefs."
But instead of belaboring the point that the centrist media are currently tilting rightward, I'd like to address some elements of centrist news propaganda that are somewhat constant.
Centrist Cliches
If, for simplicity's sake, we define the left as seeking substantial social reform toward a more equitable distribution of wealth and power, and we define the right as seeking to undo social reform and regulation toward a free marketplace that allows wide disparities in wealth and power, then we can define the political center as seeking to preserve the status quo, tinkering with the system only very prudently to work out what are seen as minor glitches, problems or inequities.
How do these three positions play out journalistically? Unlike left-wing or right-wing publications which are often on the attack, centrist propaganda emphasizes system-supporting news, frequently speaking in euphemisms. If scandals come to light, centrist propaganda often focuses less on the scandal than on how well "the system works" in fixing it. (This was the editorial drumbeat in the papers of record following both Watergate and Iran-Contra.) When it comes to foreign policy, centrist propaganda sometimes questions this or that tactic, but it never doubts that the goal of policy is anything other than promoting democracy, peace and human rights. Other countries may subvert, destabilize or support terrorism. The U.S. just wages peace.
If propaganda from the center only emphasized the upbeat, pointing so much to silver linings that it never acknowledged the existence of clouds, there'd be a credibility problem. The public wouldn't believe such bland, euphemistic reporting. So, in selective cases, centrist propaganda does talk tough about government tyrants -- especially if they're foreign tyrants or U.S. officials already deposed. (J. Edgar Hoover was one such tyrant, whose 50-year reign at the FBI was rigorously scrutinized by the mainstream media only after he was dead and buried.) And centrist propaganda can take a tough look at a social problem -- especially if it's deemed fixed or on its way to being fixed.
Another hallmark of centrist propaganda is to affirm, no matter what the evidence, that U.S. foreign policy is geared toward promoting democracy. Journalists are not unaware that the U.S. helped overthrow democratic governments, for example, in Guatemala in '54, (Iran in '53), Brazil in '64, Chile in '73 -- but these cases are considered ancient history, no longer relevant. (In centrist ideology, since the system is constantly fixing and renewing itself, U.S. abuses -- even against democracy -- become distant past overnight.)
Mainstream journalists respond to such criticism by explaining that articles for the daily press are not history texts and cannot include everything. That's true, but centrist propaganda finds space for certain histories and not others. Many if not most of the reports on Hungary's transition from Communism traced human rights abuses to the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian uprising in 1956. By contrast, reports on Guatemala's current human rights situation rarely traced events to the U.S.-sponsored coup of 1954.
Good Guys Caught Between Left and Right
Besides consistently promoting peace and democracy overseas, according to centrist propaganda, the U.S. also consistently supports the good guys abroad. Not surprisingly, the good guys are always "centrists" on the political spectrum. At least that's what the media make them out to be. And there's another media cliche one hears about our good guys, the centrists: They are perpetually hemmed in by the bad guys of left and right.
For years, as El Salvador's armed forces and allied death squads murdered thousands of civilians, media pundits told us that massive U.S. aid to Salvador's military was needed to bolster "centrists" such as Jose Napoleon Duarte. In the media mantra of the time, Duarte was "hemmed in by death squads on the right and guerrillas on the left." In using that cliche, centrist media chose to promote a dubious State Department line, while ignoring groups such as Americas Watch and Amnesty International that had documented that the security forces of the Duarte government worked hand in glove with the death squads.
I should welcome a Wikipedia entry on the dollar premium. This was the premium which (at least) UK-resident private investors had to pay to purchase non-sterling quoted securities. The level of the premium was determined by supply and demand, since the amount of foreign currency available was finite.
The premium must have disappeared automatically when UK exchange controls were abolished in 1979. I do not know when it began. My guesses would be 1931, 1965, start of World War II, and 1949.
"The design of the note has not only been controversial in its choice of Scottish figure, but has been described as ugly and aesthetically unpleasing.[citation needed] Interestingly, the banknote has a striking resemblance to that of the Euro."
I've not heard, seen, or read any descriptions of the note as ugly. I like it and so do my friends. And it doesn't really look like a euro note other than having a similar hologram. Perhaps these bits should be removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.86.181 (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Can anyone provide any background to the (re)introduction of the £50 note in 1981? As it stands, it doesn't appear to serve much purpose, as it is so little used - so it makes me wonder why they bothered. ATMs don't issue them, and many (most?) shops refuse to accept them. 217.155.20.16320:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bank of "England"
Is the use of the term "England" in the bank's name (rather than "United Kingdom") anything other than a historical artifact? Does the Bank have a different legal status outside of England (or, I suppose, outside of England and Wales?) --Jfruh (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"England" usage is an artifact, the BoE is the UK central bank and the concept of what a central bank is and does is something that the BoE became over the course of its history. Just like the rest of the British constitution it evolved and still evolves, the most recent significanr change was to give it the power to set interest rates within the rule of keeping inflation to a certain figure rather than let the Chancellor/ Treasury set the rate in relation to political pressures or rather caprice. It has the same legal status throughout the area governed by the common purse of the UK. All retail banks have to make certain deposits with it. It is "the lender of last resort" (eg Northern Rock). Banks in Scotland, Nthn Ireland and the other small territories in the British Isles have rights to issue 'bank notes' but these must be related to the BoE's note issue rules; only the BoE has a licence to print money not backed by anything other than its own rule. 79.72.81.131 (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Tony S[reply]
Chief Cashiers of the Bank of England
I have moved the list of Governors to the Governor of the Bank of England article. There's no point in keeping the 'Chief Cashiers of the Bank of England' list. Only two of the links work and the cashiers are not terribly notable. I will removed the list in the absence of objections. - Crosbiesmith07:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was considered an astute move for several reasons:
It removed the politically controversial responsibility from the government.
It was very popular with the City of London, showing a sign of the new government's desire for a strong economy.
Economic theories on time inconsistency developed by Nobel laureates Edward C. Prescott and Finn E. Kydland, along with empirical experience from New Zealand and elsewhere, suggested that independent central banks could be more successful at reducing inflation without prompting unemployment.
Following the announcement the FTSE 100 Index leapt rapidly and the pound reached its highest level against the Deutsche Mark since Sterling's exit from the ERM.
On the basis that it is somewhat P.O.V., it doesn't cite sources, and it doesn't say who considered the move astute. The comment on the FTSE may is either P.O.V. or it's irrelevant.
I added some citations to the changes in target section because there weren't any. Also, somebody said that the current CPI target is 2.5% - it's actually 2.0% so I changes it and added ref to BoE website stats.--InternationalRockSuperstar20:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Temple of Mithras
I'm concerned that the following passage may be rather misleading:
"The Bank was originally constructed above the ancient Temple of Mithras, London at Walbrook, dating to the founding of Londinium in antiquity by Roman garrisons. Mithras was, among other things, considered the god of contracts, a fitting association for the Bank."
The passage may be interpreted as implying that the Bank's location was deliberately chosen for an associaton with Mithras, or perhaps that the builders knew of the Mithraeum's location. However, according to the Temple of Mithras page, the temple remains were not discovered until 1954. If the Temple's location was not known at the time of the Bank's construction, then the Mithraic association seems little more than a coincidence. Unless a more concrete relationship can be shown, may I suggest that this passage be removed, or perhaps re-categorized as a piece of trivia?
83.67.34.95 12:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Not enough emphasis on the fractional reserve system?
The Bank of England loans more money than it has in reserves. This is actually a very important system of banking that has been replicated worldwide due to its "success" in manipulating economies via steady currency debasement (cyclic inflation/deflation). Why is it not mentioned as the system the BoE uses? This is probably the most important aspect of the Bank of England, is it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.40.3 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 31 October 2007
This unsigned comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the descriptive term "fractional reserve system" or what is meant by 'reserves' in this context. 79.72.81.131 (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Tony S[reply]
Perhaps you could explain his misunderstanding?
Are you saying the Bank of England did not create a fractional reserve system of banking? I just thought it should be mentioned somewhere in the article, since the banking system of the UK is built upon that system of credit supply, and the Bank of England is the monopoly supplier of that credit.
The BoE is not the monopoly supplier of credit. Private banks can create credit whenever they want provided they stay within capital requirements etc. The BoE does have a monopoly on the issue of banknotes but that is a different matter. Most of what we consider to be money is in fact credit.
92.40.234.248 (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even more than that, the BoE only has a monopoly on the issue of banknotes within England and Wales.
